Editorial: An agenda for civil service change

When I suggested in early 2019 that the journal should consider publishing an issue dedicated to the theme of developing civil servants, I did so because I hoped that we might breathe new life into what, in many countries, had become a forgotten subject. Those of us for whom civil service reform has long been an obsession were struggling to keep the flame burning but most others seemed to have concluded that there were other more pressing issues, or that it was time to accept the inevitability of the status quo. As Ramon Xifré points out in his article in this issue, that was not just the case in the UK because the European Commission made no reference to civil service reform when providing assistance following the 2007/2008 financial crisis (Xifré, 2020). In the face of this waning interest in reform, I wondered whether Public Money & Management (PMM) could, in its time-honoured way, bring together academics and practitioners who had a contribution to make on the kind of civil servants we now need and how we might train them—and thus reopen the debate.

More recently, however, events have conspired to return the subject to the centre stage without the help of PMM. We have seen the return of a government with well-publicised doubts about the current civil service model; the pandemic and the widespread criticisms of the way it has been managed in Whitehall and Westminster; the management of Brexit; and several failures of policy and delivery represented, not least, by Universal Credit (unemployment relief) and Crossrail. And, when I wrote the first draft of this editorial, things came to a head with the resignation of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, and a major speech by Cabinet Office minister the Rt Hon Michael Gove at Ditchley Park in which he made a case for a very different kind of civil servant with a very different set of skills (Gove, 2020).

So this PMM issue may no longer be needed as the spark to reignite the debate, but it has much to say of relevance and could hardly be more timely.

As David (Lord) Blunkett rightly observes, in his debate article in this issue, attempts to modernize the civil service have been numerous from Northcote-Trevelyan in 1854 to the Fulton report in 1968 and, more recently, the various reforms during the Blair years (Blunkett, 2020). The accompanying debates have been robust, passionate and, in most cases, polarized. Nonetheless, many dispassionate observers would argue that real change has been limited in a world where change has elsewhere become the norm leaving the civil service exposed to the accusation that it is no longer ‘fit for purpose’.

Wolfgang Drechsler and Rainer Kattel (2020) put it rather nicely when they say that:

 … if Winston Churchill were resurrected today … and came walking down Whitehall to his old offices, he would not need much updating on how the system worked. The bureaucratic structure, and the interaction between civil servants, would not have changed in a truly substantive way … Which means that there has been no significant digital transformation at all, and not that much institutional innovation.

Those who have defended the status quo—in practice if not in words—have often suggested that reform will inevitably undermine the core values of the service. Many of the advocates of reform would argue that these should continue to form the foundations for the service but argue they are no longer sufficient in themselves.

And so the debate continues to rage at great cost to the credibility and effectiveness of the civil service itself. Some point to the change that has undoubtedly taken place as evidence of movement, whereas others argue that it has not yet transformed the culture and capacity of the service. As a result, they point to the failures in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic as the inevitable consequence of too little change.

In this midst of this continuing battle, I have begun to ask myself—naively some will suggest—whether the time has come to seek out some common ground or vision for the future that might find broad favour. It was in that spirit that I began to consider the contributions contained in this issue alongside other recent interventions—and, by the way, we are immensely grateful to those who submitted articles for consideration. Is it possible to identify an agenda for change which has support broad enough to give it a chance of success? Well, there do seem to be several areas of possible consensus which could provide just such an agenda for change.

The core values

Sometimes described as ‘the eternal verities’, the core values of the civil service have generally been accepted to be:

• Integrity.

• Honesty.

• Impartiality.

• Objectivity.

Although these are not much referred to in the articles which make up this PMM issue, they have formed the bedrock of the civil service and most commentators and stakeholders would want that to continue. I have therefore included them as a point of consensus, although some doubt whether the strength of commitment to these is as strong as it once was and point to the recent appointment of David Frost as the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser as evidence of that. If these remain core, as I think they should, then that should be reaffirmed so that the changes which are needed can proceed within that secure framework

Diversity of talent

In his article on shifting culture, Neil Reeder refers to William Beveridge famously suggesting that ‘the besetting sin of civil servants is to mix too much with each other’ (Reeder, 2020). That might not be so damaging if the civil service was more diverse. Genuine attempts have been made to increase the numbers of women and members of the BAME communities in the service, and the government’s website (www.gov.uk) proudly boasts that ‘the civil service is a modern and diverse workplace, committed to promoting and ensuring equality and valuing diversity’. But the statistics show that there is still much to be done. Only 12.7% of all civil servants are non white and, at the senior civil service level, 91.9% are white and 55.2% are male. But diversity goes further than gender, race and disability. In his Ditchley speech Gove asked: ‘How can we in Government be less southern, less middle class, less reliant on those with social science qualifications and more welcoming to those with physical science and mathematical qualifications?’

In much the same vein, Blunkett, in his article in this issue, points out that 50% of permanent secretaries have been either privately educated or gone to the most prestigious public schools after primary education. ‘Link that’, he says, ‘with university education at Oxford and Cambridge and you get the picture’.

Leaving aside issues of equality, meritocracy and fairness, the real danger here is that if the pool from which the expertise is drawn is too narrow, then group think is much more likely and creativity much less. And, at a time when the world is changing so quickly, innovation and creativity have never been more precious. To quote again from Gove: ‘[We need] a broader and deeper pool of decision-makers … Groupthink can affect any organization. The tendency to coalesce around a cosy consensus, to resist change, look for information to confirm existing biases and to reject rigorous testing of delivery’.

In recent years, special advisers (SpAds as they are often known) have offered a way, in part at least, of addressing the narrow talent pool, but the civil service has often found these outsiders difficult to work alongside and their potential has too rarely been realized. In my time as a permanent secretary, I found the special advisers to be a huge asset capable of bringing a very different perspective to policy discussions and have long believed that they have an important part to play in the Whitehall system—not least by confronting the danger of group think. Creativity has never been more important than it is now in a world of such rapid change and the civil service has, in pockets, shown how creative it can be faced with the likes of the financial crisis in 2008. But that level of creativity needs to be more widely seen and it will derive in part, at least, from a diversity of life experience. Attempts may have been made to broaden the talent pool but the consensus seems to be that there is much left to do.

Delivery capacity

It is interesting, but not perhaps surprising, that elected politicians value the capacity of the civil service to deliver. Alexander Downer, a former foreign minister of Australia says in his debate article: ‘In reality, for a minister, the implementation of policy efficiently and effectively is by far the most important function of the civil service … Ministers want delivery’ (Downer, 2020). Gove, in his Ditchley speech, suggests ‘[We should] value a diversity of skills … Delivery on the ground; making a difference in the community; practicable, measurable improvements in the lives of others should matter more’.

I would observe that ministers and governments fall more often because of a failure to deliver than because of flawed policy, which is why delivery is so much valued. The problem is that delivery has never been the strength of the civil service and my time as Chair of the National Audit Office has demonstrated that to me in abundance. Take a look at Crossrail, which is over budget and still not completed; take a look at the Starter Homes’ target of 200,000 homes which delivered none at all (NAO, 2019); or take a look at the implementation of Universal Credit, social care and countless failed IT projects. None of these were straightforward projects and many civil servants will have done their very best to deliver success, but each and every one has fallen short.

So, what is the problem? It may be a failure of both culture and skills. It never seemed to me that operational management or delivery was valued as highly as policy and that meant that the best managers and project managers were rarely promoted to the most senior posts. The civil service valued and promoted the talented generalist with policy skills. Blunkett suggests that ‘The “generalist” had been seen as someone who could, at very senior levels, hover above the fray: it was not for them to get their hands dirty with the business of actually “delivering” projects or services’. Many will disagree strongly with such sentiments but they resonate strongly with me. Recent initiatives have underlined the fact that there is a problem but, still, too few senior civil servants have had in-depth experience of operational management and are not, therefore, the best equipped to challenge or support those tasked with delivering major projects. I have long argued that entry to the senior civil service should require evidence of genuine delivery experience but that is still not the case.

The lack of respect for those who toil to deliver can also mean that they are not sufficiently involved in the development of policy, which leads to policy which is very difficult to manage or deliver effectively. Gove notes, correctly in my view, that: ‘Public servants … such as those in the care sector, waste and refuse disposal, and the people who keep our hospitals hygienic and safe, should be at the centre of our policy-making’.

But, if culture is still an issue, then the lack of specialist delivery skills is also part of the problem. Not all senior civil servants can be expected to possess specialist project management skills but those skills have to be developed and retained in sufficient numbers or recruited externally. Again, efforts are being made, but are not sufficient, to deal with the massive programmes of capital works now underway let alone the likely consequences of the ‘new deal’ post pandemic. And, to labour the point, the specialists need to be managed by officials who have the ‘nous’ to call out excessive optimism, poor risk management, unrealistic targets and the inadequate availability and use of performance data. As Blunkett observes, the trick is to build teams that have a broad range of skills and not to expect these to be found within one person.

It is worth reminding ourselves, too, that delivery matters, not just to ministers and governments, but to citizens who depend on public services often just to survive—something which has been highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Maybe this will provide the stimulus to ensure that the consensus which exists around the need to improve delivery leads to radical action.

Political astuteness

The UK civil service has justifiably been proud of its impartiality: the ability to serve governments of different political colour without favour and to speak truth unto power—even when that challenges the political convictions of ministers. Impartiality is rightly a core value but does that go far enough? Rob Whiteman, in his contribution to this issue, thinks not and refers to the need for ‘political nous’ (Whiteman, 2020), while Blunkett regrets that ‘Most of those generalists never had any real insight into how the parliamentary and wider political arena works’. That was certainly my experience having been exposed to the political brutalities of a hung council in Brent in the 1980s. This theme is brilliantly developed in this issue by Jean Hartley and Stella Manzie in their article on the importance of political astuteness. They describe how this includes having empathy with politicians, as in ‘an ability mentally to step into their shoes, without themselves being party political’; they explore how the best civil servants understand that they work in the context of dual leadership are therefore, often, ‘dancing on ice’; they demonstrate how political astuteness has to be exercised within a constitutional and ethical framework; and they reinforce the need for civil servants to better understand the harsh realities of political life (Hartley & Manzie, 2020).

Perhaps, most tellingly, Hartley and Manzie make two further points. First, they note that the most recent competency frameworks/success profile for the civil service makes only limited reference to ministers. However, given that, as one permanent secretary said, political astuteness is in ‘every breath we take’, it would surely be desirable if it was taught in an open and structured way. I would add that more experience of politics on the front line would not go amiss. Hartley and Manzie’s second point is that arguably the ability to lead with political astuteness is the key quality which enables the UK as a Westminster system of government, to follow the model in which the senior ranks of the civil service do not change after a change of administration. Political astuteness is, they say, ‘essential both to the effective day-to-day practice of government and to the governance model which underpins our constitutional and ethical assumptions about those who serve ministers in the UK’. I agree and, to put it rather differently, my own experience was that the most effective civil servants were those whose political nous enabled them to work closely with ministers without crossing the line of impartiality. Less effective were those who maintained their impartiality by keeping a more than safe distance from anything which had the whiff of politics about it. Political astuteness is an essential skill which should be in every breath we take. The fact that it is not goes some way to explaining the loss of trust which some now complain of.

Collaboration

For many years the civil service has been urged to improve the way it works across organizational boundaries. ‘Joined-up government’ has become something of a mantra—rightly so because no single government department can, working in isolation, resolve any of the major problems facing us simply because they do not fit neatly into the bureaucratic structures. Better collaboration is therefore essential if the so-called ‘wicked issues’ are to be addressed. But joined-up government at the centre has been almost as elusive as the wicked issues themselves, and Whitehall has often been criticised by those working in local services who claim that their ability to deliver coherent ‘one-stop’ services has been compromised by the silos at the centre. Like so much else, successful collaboration is not achieved just by rhetoric and good intentions. It requires a skill set of its own which includes the ability to build and sustain trust across organizational boundaries; the capacity to develop and win ownership for shared targets and objectives; the fair allocation of limited resources and the clear definition of roles and responsibilities. But these skills have rarely been given priority and success has been defined by the extent to which narrow departmental objectives have been met.

The citizen, on the other hand, judges success by the extent to which government, local and central, meets their needs. In the words of Hartley and Manzie: all activity should be seen as part of a wider governmental system. The Covid-19 pandemic has, in so many ways, shone a light on how far we are from that ideal. There have been too many examples of data not being shared between central and local agencies; examples of functions best delivered locally being retained centrally; and examples of central departments just not understanding the role of local services or how communities work.

Some would argue that years of narrowly-defined targets and specialist arm’s-length agencies have damaged the ability of government to offer citizen-centred, coherent services. Others would suggest that we have failed to develop the knowledge and skills officials need to do that. Whatever the case, the fact that the problem has proved so difficult to resolve is no reason to conclude it is insoluble. For this reason I found the article by Rodney Scott and Michael Macaulay in this issue especially strong. Their article explains how New Zealand is seeking to foster a unified culture and social identity across the public services which coalesces around the concept of ‘spirit of service to the community’ (Scott & Macaulay, 2020). In New Zealand, they are using this concept to make collective sense of one agency’s role with the stewardship responsibilities for public services as a whole. In the UK, we seem a long way from seeing the need for that kind of approach, let alone seeking to make it a reality, but it would have a massive impact on the kind of development opportunities provided to civil and public servants and the way in which they were made available. The article in this issue by Catherine Farrell and Jo Hicks on the Welsh graduate programme points out the direction needed (Farrell & Hicks, 2020).

The concern for the civil service should be that the growing consensus for change referenced above relates to fundamental rather than marginal issues—the need for a reaffirmation of the core values; the importance of a more diverse talent pool; the need to develop better political nous or astuteness, a stronger delivery capacity and a willingness to work in partnership across the public sector and beyond. There are, of course, specific skills which need to be developed or imported, such as procurement, commissioning, digital and a grasp of the strategic potential of artificial intelligence but any debate about the civil service which focuses on these, but ignores the culture, misses the point. Broadbent (2020), in summarizing the discussion which took place at PMM Live! 2019, argues along similar lines when she says that there are those who argue that the culture cannot be changed without damaging the core values but, as Reeder observes in his article in this issue, there have been changes in key features during the past decade but those who suggest these have been enough put at risk the very core values they seek to defend.

As many suggest in this issue, and as others argue elsewhere, the time surely has now come for radical reform coupled with a serious programme of training and development. Gove goes as far to say: ‘For many decades now we have neglected to ensure the Civil Service has all the basic skills required to serve Government, and our citizens, well’. South Korea (see Pan Suk Kim, 2020) has responded to this by introducing a competence assessment model, while Hartley and Manzie highlight the need for conceptual and reflective learning as well as the experiential. They concur, as do I, with the report on strategic leadership produced by PACAC in 2019 which pointed out quite sharply that ‘it would be valuable to have a permanent location for learning and development for the civil service quite apart from the promising new developments which have occurred with the establishment of the Civil Service Leadership Academy and the National Leadership Centre’ (PACAC, 2019). The PACAC would have concurred with Berend van der Kolk (2020) when he concludes that:

Organizations should think twice before they consider cutting back on training and education budgets for civil servants. Although a cut in education budgets may indeed save money in the short term, it is because of the ability of training to support the employees’ need for competence that such a decision may backfire in the long term— resulting in for instance lower intrinsic motivation and performance.

As I noted at the outset, the debate about reform has not always been productive but we may have finally reached the tipping point. The question may now be not ‘whether change’ but whether it will occur in a way that preserves the many strengths of the system.